Discussion Title: The fight of western countries against climate change is hypocritical

1. The fight of western countries against climate change is hypocritical.
1.1. Con: The contribution of the western world to climate change is the reason that many people of the western world are fighting to stop it.
1.2. Pro: People who attend strikes often know very little about what is happening and why.
1.2.1. Pro: Many people who attend strikes are [committed activists](https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/articles/global-climate-strike-5-youth-activists-who-are-leading-the-charge-on-climate-action) or very interested in helping the environment.
1.2.1.1. Pro: Attending a strike is a costly action which people would not take if they were not passionate.
1.2.1.2. Con: Some children just [want a day off school](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7484625/School-children-admit-dont-care-climate-change-just-want-day-off.html) rather than caring about why they are striking.
1.2.2. Con: People who make the effort to go to the streets and march there have at least a basic understanding of the cause, and choose to support it.
1.2.2.1. Pro: People who do not know much about the problem would not attend these marches.
1.2.3. Con: People are likely to only know about events \(especially ones limited to the media, like news\) and are hence likely to only protest these instead of consistently take part in the battle of the ongoing issues, such as climate change.
1.3. Pro: The fight against climate change prevents other countries from developing effectively.
1.3.1. Pro: Developing countries cannot take on the [burden](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_China%27s_economic_responsibilities_for_climate_change_mitigation#China_is_following_the_example_of_developed_nations) of adhering to climate friendly policy without slowing down their economic development.
1.3.2. Pro: Climate change friendly policies impose restrictions on production and thus undermine economic development.
1.4. Con: Some people don't have time or the resources to do something more effective other than spending one afternoon marching in the streets.
1.4.1. Pro: It is quite expensive at first to start living more eco-friendly even in western countries, so protesting might be the most people can do in some cases.
1.5. Con: Western countries are contributing to the fight more than eastern and less developed countries.
1.5.1. Con: Eastern and less developed countries have much less wealth and resources, as well as not such economic development, therefore they do not have so much power over climate change.
1.5.2. Con: Many of the polluting industries in less developed countries are fuelled by the demand created by people living in western countries.
1.5.3. Pro: Countries such as China, India and Russia have one of the highest amounts of emissions.
1.5.3.1. Pro: As of [2018](https://www.nature.com/immersive/d41586-019-02711-4/index.html), China is responsible for 27% of the global CO2 emissions.
1.5.3.2. Pro: In [2018](https://qz.com/india/1581665/indias-carbon-emissions-growing-faster-than-us-china-says-iea/), CO2 emissions in India rose by 4.8% from 2017, according to a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency.
1.5.4. Con: Developed western countries are responsible for [79 percent](https://www.cgdev.org/media/who-caused-climate-change-historically) of historical carbon emissions.
1.5.4.1. Pro: The European Union contributes to around [40 percent](https://www.cgdev.org/media/who-caused-climate-change-historically) of this.
1.5.4.2. Pro: The [world’s most populated country](https://www.activesustainability.com/environment/top-5-most-polluting-countries/) is China, which has an enormous export market, that has seen its industry grow to become a serious danger to the planet.
1.5.4.3. Pro: The [world’s biggest industrial and commercial power](https://www.activesustainability.com/environment/top-5-most-polluting-countries/) is the United States of America which is the second most polluting country in the world.
1.5.4.3.1. Con: In [recent times](https://www.activesustainability.com/environment/top-5-most-polluting-countries/), the United States has led the [most important initiatives](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/12/us-activists-launch-climate-change-initiatives) to combat climate change.
1.5.4.3.1.1. Con: The United States has pulled out of the [Paris Agreement](https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/05/paris-climate-agreement-united-states-withdraw/), which is an important climate change reduction agreement.
1.5.5. Pro: US CO2 emissions have been [declining over the past decade](https://www.nature.com/immersive/d41586-019-02711-4/index.html) as coal use has fallen in favour of natural gas and renewables.
1.5.6. Pro: The collective annual CO2 emissions by countries in the EU have dropped by more than [20% since 1990](https://www.nature.com/immersive/d41586-019-02711-4/index.html).
1.5.7. Pro: Western countries have stricter climate change legislation as compared to the eastern and less developed countries.
1.5.7.1. Con: China’s industrial energy saving policies towards combating climate change are [more stringent](https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/comparative-assessment-china-and-us-policies-meet-climate-change-targets) as compared to those in the United States.
1.6. Pro: Many companies [greenwash](https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/10946-greenwashing.html?) their products, which makes them seem ecological even though in fact they are not.
1.6.1. Pro: Companies often use marketing \(e.g. adding animals and natural patterns to their products\) to make them seem greener, or even claim that their products are eco-friendly, even if they are not.
1.7. Pro: The lavish lifestyles experienced and supported by the West disvalue their claims about their actions taken for reverting climate change.
1.7.1. Pro: Oxfam has [estimated](https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/12/health/rich-people-climate-change-intl/index.html) that the average carbon footprint of someone in the world's richest 1% is 175 times that of someone in the poorest 10%. Given that [majority of the world's richest 1%](https://money.cnn.com/2012/01/04/news/economy/world_richest/index.htm) live in western countries, their lifestyle greatly contributes to climate change.
1.7.2. Pro: The day to day lifestyles of Western consumers are sustained by climate destruction in parts of the "third world".
1.7.2.1. Pro: For example, climate change [in Bangladesh](https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/world/asia/bangladesh-pollution-told-in-colors-and-smells.html) is a significant problem. Part of the issue is that garments are produced in environmentally unfriendly conditions and exported to Western countries for Western consumers to enjoy.
1.7.3. Con: Many climate activists advocate for changes in lifestyles in the West.
1.7.3.1. Pro: Veganism and vegetarianism are becoming increasingly popular due to their [lower impact on the planet](https://www.bbc.co.uk/food/articles/vegan_vs_flexitarian) than meat-eating.
1.7.3.2. Pro: Many people are calling for a reduction in air travel due to its environmental impact, as seen in the growing trend of ['flight shaming'.](https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49890057)
1.7.3.3. Con: Often people do things which they believe to help, e.g. buy metal straws, yet they don't have such a large impact.
1.7.3.3.1. Con: In theory, if everyone were to take such actions it could have a larger and more tangible impact.
1.7.3.3.2. Pro: Materials are used up and pollution is created through manufacture and shipping, would be much more ecological to stop using straws overall.
1.7.4. Con: Often individuals cannot control the environmental impact of their lifestyle, due to decisions at a government level.
1.7.4.1. Pro: Individuals cannot control whether there is sustainable energy available for them to buy instead of oil or gas, as this depends on [infrastructure](https://www.irishtimes.com/special-reports/sustainable-ireland/renewable-energy-for-ireland-is-a-way-to-increase-energy-independence-1.3853383).
1.7.4.2. Con: Individuals can lobby governments to make these changes.
1.7.4.3. Pro: If the government does not provide adequate public transport, individuals may [need to](https://www.irishtimes.com/news/critics-of-car-free-day-say-lack-of-public-transport-is-problem-1.1158627) use a car to commute to work.
1.7.5. Con: Greenhouse gas emissions in most Western counties are considered to have [peaked](https://www.wri.org/blog/2017/11/turning-point-which-countries-ghg-emissions-have-peaked-which-will-future) by now and will stabilise or reduce due to slow economic growth and a shift to sustainable energy.
1.7.6. Pro: The United States alone use enough energy to equal [17%](https://www.americangeosciences.org/critical-issues/faq/how-much-worlds-energy-does-united-states-use) of the worlds energy consumption.
1.7.7. Pro: People would have to give up their lifestyles to truly fight against climate change and not many people are willing to do this.
1.7.7.1. Pro: E.g. travelling via airplane is now very common, yet it is extremely polluting.
1.7.8. Con: Often it is not the case of the lavish lifestyles in particular but due to the fact that some people are not educated enough.
1.7.9. Pro: [Initiatives](https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2014/02/9-reasons-us-ended-so-much-more-car-dependent-europe/8226/) taken by western countries, such as the US, have lead to an increase in individual ownership of vehicles.
1.7.9.1. Pro: Carbon emissions from the U.S. transportation sector is [three times greater](https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/comparative-assessment-china-and-us-policies-meet-climate-change-targets) than its Chinese counterpart, primarily as a result of high per-capita vehicle ownership in the United States.
1.7.9.1.1. Con: Per capita ownership of vehicles in China is [increasing at a faster rate](https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/comparative-assessment-china-and-us-policies-meet-climate-change-targets) compared to that in the US.
1.7.9.1.1.1. Pro: In [2013](https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/comparative-assessment-china-and-us-policies-meet-climate-change-targets), the United States had 809 vehicles for every 1,000 people, while China had only 89 per 1,000 people. While the U.S. per-capita number has been largely stable around 800 vehicles in recent years, China’s car fleet has increased dramatically to 106 in 2015.
1.8. Con: None of the ''save the planet'' virtue signalling rhetoric of the greens contains any realistic/ workable answers to the problem.
1.8.1. Con: There are many well known ways to combat climate change. The "greens" are pushing to incentivise their use through political and social pressure.
1.9. Pro: The horrors of climate change are the fault of western countries, and they [continue to contribute to climate change](https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-08-03/rich-countries-need-stop-being-hypocrites-climate-change-philippines-president).
1.9.1. Pro: High-income Western countries are more harmful to climate change than non-Western countries.
1.9.1.1. Pro: High-income western countries have [higher carbon footprints](https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/the-worlds-richest-people-also-emit-the-most-carbon) as the world's richest people [live](https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2018/06/21/richest-countries-in-world-based-on-income/35953213/) in those countries.
1.9.1.1.1. Pro: -> See 1.7.1.
1.9.1.2. Pro: The US and Western European demand for clothes, toys, or mobile phones contributes directly to [air pollution in developing countries](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/29/western-consumers-fuelling-tens-of-thousands-of-air-pollution-related-deaths).
1.9.1.3. Con: [China's emissions represent 27% of the world's CO2 emissions](https://www.nature.com/immersive/d41586-019-02711-4/index.html), while the U.S. emissions together with the European ones represent 24% of the total.
1.9.1.3.1. Con: To date, the United States has contributed the [most to global CO2 emissions](https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2).
1.9.2. Pro: Government officials from western countries usually fly in [private jets](https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/08/20/the-real-reason-they-behave-hypocritically-on-climate-change-is-because-they-want-to/#1d06d799185a), which heavily contribute towards climate change.
1.9.2.1. Pro: BBC [calculated](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49408915) that the two flights taken by the British Royal couple alone produced six times more emissions than the average Briton does each year, and over 100 times more than the average resident of the African nation of Lesotho.
1.10. Pro: People do very little to help stop global warming, they do things such as go march in streets without doing actual direct action.
1.10.1. Con: If the criticism is against "Western countries", then this seems to refer to the government. The actions of the public should not be equated to the actions of government.
1.10.2. Pro: After strikes, there is often mess and garbage [everywhere​](https://usareally.com/4297-climate-activists-following-the-protests-left-mountains-of-rubbish-in-dc-and-ny).
1.10.2.1. Con: Some of the claims of climate strikers leaving rubbish after protests have turned out [to be false](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/protesters-hyde-park-rubbish/).
1.10.2.2. Con: This mess is only confined to the streets in which the strikes took place and are not very significant.
1.10.3. Con: Everyone supports the cause differently - some people go pick up trash, some people go apply pressure on the governments. It is better than no action.
1.10.3.1. Pro: Especially during the past year, the amount of strikes have risen, bringing more awareness to the problem.
1.10.4. Pro: -> See 1.7.3.3.